Now there Are Four: Another Honest Liberal Debunks Gun Control

Over the years, I’ve been pleasantly surprised to find intellectuals on the left who are willing to risk opprobrium from their ideological peers by acknowledging that gun control doesn’t make sense.

  • In 2012, I shared some important observations from Jeffrey Goldberg, a left-leaning writer for The Atlantic. In his column, he basically admitted his side was wrong about gun control.
  • Then, in 2013, I wrote about a column by Justin Cronin in the New York Times. He self-identified as a liberal, but explained how real-world events have led him to become a supporter of private gun ownership.
  • Most recently, in 2015, I shared a column by Jamelle Bouie in Slate. Bouie addresses the left’s fixation on trying to ban so-called assault weapons and explains that such policies are meaningless.

Now we have another addition to the list.

In a must-read column in the Washington Post, Leah Libresco admits that the research shows that gun control simply doesn’t work. She starts by openly confessing her bias.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

She then points out that she and other researchers did a thorough investigation of gun deaths and found that restrictions on gun ownership would not have saved lives.

…my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence.

She looked at international data and the case for gun control evaporated.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

She also looked at some of the proposals advanced by U.S. advocates of gun control and discovered they don’t work.

…no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos. …silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

Sounds like Ms. Libresco has reached the same conclusion as firearms expert Larry Correia.

So what’s her bottom line? Well, Libresco still doesn’t like guns, but she’s intellectually honest about the fallacy of gun control.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.

Very well stated.

Let’s close with two infographics from Reddit‘s libertarian page. I can’t personally vouch for every factoid, but based on what I’ve previously shared (see here, here, here, and here), I would be quite surprised if this information isn’t accurate.

And here’s the second one.

P.S. If you want to laugh at the dishonest (or naive) liberals, watch this amusing video to see how they think gun control works in their fantasy world (and here’s a more somber video that makes the same point). And for unintentional humor, Trevor Noah’s naiveté is always funny.

Then give your leftist friends this IQ test on gun control and see if they can figure out the right answer.

15 Responses

  1. […] 2017, Leah Libresco wrote in the Washington Post that advocates of gun control are driven by emotion rather […]

  2. […] 2017, Leah Libresco wrote in the Washington Post that advocates of gun control are driven by emotion rather empirical […]

  3. […] dealing with honest leftists on the issue of gun control. For other examples, click here, here, here, and […]

  4. […] a more serious note about gun control, I invite readers to peruse my collection (here, here, here, here, and here) of honest […]

  5. […] recently, in 2017, Leah Libresco wrote in the Washington Post that advocates of gun control are driven by emotion rather empirical […]

  6. […] year, Leah Libresco confessed that gun control simply doesn’t […]

  7. […] Libresco confesses that gun control simply doesn’t […]

  8. […] of gun control, and since a growing number of honest liberals (see here, here, here, and here) also acknowledge that such laws are ill-advised, I didn’t think another column would be […]

  9. […] Serious studies of the effectiveness of popular control measure have found little evidence that they would or have helped. “Gun-control-solutions-supported-by-experts”. Dan Mitchell has provided a series of articles summarizing some of these studies under the title “another honest liberal debunks gun control.” “Now-there-are-four-another-honest-liberal-debunks-gun-control” […]

  10. […] When that happened, I immediately fantasized about being a hero and using nullification to block an unjust gun prosecution or unjust drug prosecution. But it turned out that the case was a lawsuit between a […]

  11. […] Now there Are Four: Another Honest Liberal Debunks Gun Control […]

  12. […] Now there Are Four: Another Honest Liberal Debunks Gun Control: Dan MitchellWho, How, Why, and WTF?: RaconteurNew Low: WaPo Mocks “Gun-Packing Instagram Star” Dan Bilzerian For Fleeing LV Massacre: InfLib […]

  13. the truly despicable quality of the fascist left is their propensity to penalize law abiding citizens for acts committed by criminals… law abiding gun owners have committed no crime… and yet the lunatic fringe of the socialist democrat party whats to violate the constitution and blame law abiding Americans for the acts of terrorists and psychopaths… and we are supposed to accept their convoluted moral judgments… next election cycle we have an opportunity to further reduce their influence on our society……………………………………. let’s do it…….

  14. on October 5, 2017 at 10:08 am Luis Hernandez

    In Venezuela, as an example, there is absolute gun control, only military, law enforcement people and tyranny´s thugs (the same as the two precedent categories) can bear arms. Result : 85 murders by firearms per 100,000 people Vs 10.15 for the US. All those proposed controls end up harming law abiding citizens. A triumph o evil over good.

  15. It is a bit surprising that Mr. Mitchell fails to consider an economic solution to gun violence.

    The government can not do an adequate background check and evaluation. The private sector, particularly insurance companies, could.

    Imagine a policy of mandatory gun insurance (that might first be implemented in one or more blue states). Private insurance companies would price the insurance based on the risk of harm of particular weapons and ammunition in the hands of people with specific backgrounds.

    Over time safer weapons and people with training and normal backgrounds would be rated to qualify for significantly lower insurance costs.

    More importantly, people like the shooter would quickly trigger red flags for the insurance companies that would risk large no-fault type damages from gun use. There may be a right to own one or more weapons but there is no right to the private insurance needed for it – similar to automobile no-fault insurance.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: